Why I’m not a republican

Here’s something to try on your friends next time you’re in the pub or at a dinner party.

Let’s assume that, at some time in your life, you will fall foul of the authorities in a foreign country. The good news is you get to choose which one. If you had to get into trouble with the police and justice system somewhere, which country would you choose? (Exclude English-speaking ones because that just makes it too easy.) Where do you think you would be treated the most fairly?

Whenever I have tried this, the answers are remarkably consistent. Most people come up with a similar list of countries. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are usually in there somewhere.

And what do these countries have in common? They are all monarchies. Some of the least repressive countries in the world have crowned heads of state.

If such a vague idea of fairness doesn’t do it for you, try looking at the data for some of the other things we usually think of as making a good society. The UN’s Human Development Index is a good place to start. It looks at life expectancy, education levels and standards of living. Here are the top ten countries:

  1. Norway
  2. Australia
  3. New Zealand
  4. United States
  5. Ireland
  6. Liechtenstein
  7. Netherlands
  8. Canada
  9. Sweden
  10. Germany

That’s 7-3 to the monarchies then!

What about the OECD’s Subjective Well Being index?

  1. Netherlands
  2. Denmark
  3. Finland
  4. Norway
  5. Sweden
  6. Canada
  7. Czech Republic
  8. New Zealand
  9. Belgium
  10. Australia

That’s 8-2 to the monarchies. Having a king, queen or grand duke doesn’t seem to make people unhappy. Far from it.

Such subjective stuff won’t satisfy the bread-heads among you. Let’s look at some harder data. What about the ten safest countries in terms of financial risk?

  1. Norway
  2. Luxembourg
  3. Switzerland
  4. Denmark
  5. Sweden
  6. Singapore
  7. Finland
  8. Netherlands
  9. Canada
  10. Australia

That’s 7-3 to the monarchies, again.

“But what about equality,” cry the socialists. Let’s have a look at the OECD’s Gini Coefficients, a measure of income equality:

  1. Denmark
  2. Sweden
  3. Luxembourg
  4. Austria
  5. Czech republic
  6. Slovak Republic
  7. Finland
  8. Netherlands
  9. Belgium
  10. Switzerland

That’s 5 all.

I could go on. Look at global competitiveness, labour productivity, social mobility or any of the other good things that the OECD and other international organisations measure and the monarchies are at least as well represented as the republics.

Now before anyone starts (because someone is bound to) I’m not saying that there is a correlation between monarchy and all these good things. Unsurprisingly, the hereditary despotisms in the Arab world don’t score highly on any of these indices. But it is clear that being a monarchy is no barrier to being a fair, equal, happy and prosperous society. All other things being equal, a monarchy is just as likely to be a good place to live as a republic.

Republican arguments that Britain needs to throw off the yoke of monarchy before it can become a less class-ridden and more modern society don’t stand up to scrutiny. The developed countries with which we compare ourselves have, over time, developed broadly liberal and democratic governmental systems. They are all different but all have some sort of electoral process for holding governments to account and expressing the popular will. Whether or not the head of state is a hereditary monarch or an elected president has little if any impact on the sort of societies they have become. Attitudes to fairness, equality and social class are products of a country’s history and culture. If Britain were to become a republic tomorrow, it would still retain its social attitudes and would probably still be less equal than the Scandinavian countries fifty years from now.

Dumping the monarchy and turning Britain into a republic would be a colossal task. A complete new set of rules for our political and judicial systems would have to be written. The design, the public consultation and the implementation of a completely new system of government would take years and cost a fortune.

Becoming a republic, then, would be an expensive waste of time and an irrelevant diversion. As Timothy Garton Ash succinctly put it in yesterday’s Guardian:

Before you abandon a thousand years of poetry, you should be very certain that you will fare better in prose.

And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we would.

The things that the republicans moan about happen just as much in republics as in monarchies. Heads of state are expensive. Even avowedly republican states like France and the USA have their fair share of pomp and circumstance. Their presidents live in big houses, throw lavish parties and require extensive security to protect them. And as for all this stuff about the Crown giving prime ministers too much power, have you seen the powers a French president has?

When kings made arbitrary judgements, imprisoned people without trial, confiscated their land and forced their sons and daughters into slavery, republicanism made a lot of sense. Even as late as the nineteenth century it could have been argued that our relatively benign monarchy was the pinnacle of an oppressive landed gentry and should therefore be abolished for the greater good.

Power in 2011, though, is more diffuse and monarchs have very little say in the way the country is run. Even the aristocracy don’t have the clout they once did. Financiers and media moguls now have more power than kings and queens, and that is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. Abuses of power still go on, just as they did in the days of Charles I, but these days they happen a long way from the royal palaces.

Hereditary rule is, as its critics point out, an ancient anachronism but for all practical purposes that doesn’t matter. Modern developed countries have made both monarchies and republics work. Getting rid of our monarchy would not do anything to make us a happier, more prosperous or more equal society.

Republicanism is an ideology stuck in the past. It dates from a time when monarchs wielded arbitrary power. But power and its abuse in a modern state is far more complex than it was in the days of bad King John. Republicanism is the day before yesterday’s battle. We have more important things to deal with now.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Why I’m not a republican

  1. Pingback: Why I’m not a republican - Rick - Member Blogs - HR Blogs - HR Space from Personnel Today and Xpert HR

  2. Kevin Ball says:

    What a confused post, Rick. ‘I’m not saying there is a correlation between monarchy and all these good things’: well why quote the numbers, then? To accuse Republicanism of being more outdated than the devine right of kings is unusually one-eyed for such a bright chap and almost as daft as your quote from Garton-Ash who seems to have decided that feudalism is capable of a poetry that democracy is not. 

    You are right to argue that the effort to rid ourselves of the privileged is likely not worth the return: they are largely neutered in any practical sense. But you are wrong to ignore their significance as a cultural artefact that roots us in the distant past. The tourists aren’t in London today to celebrate the monarchy that their ancestors had the wisdom to overthrow, that are visiting a kind of pre-Disney world where red buses, bowler hats and smog don’t stop Sherlock Holmes saving the Empire. That’s what the monarchy is: physical proof that we are a backward-looking people clinging to an exploitative class system that helped make some of us rich at the expense of others and, oh look, that’s just what the Tories are up to again. There is no legitimacy to the divisive politics of Thatcher and Cameron but there are direct antecedents to the system that the monarchy sits on top of. You’re right that the grandees are now more likely to be bankers than Lords but their hegemony has it’s roots in the system we’ve preserved. 

    I wish no-one any harm today. To those that want to celebrate I say: enjoy. I can even take pleasure from the sense of common purpose that a national event brings with it but let’s not pretend that it has any more significance than a football world cup (and lets also notice that the wedding is predominantly an English spectator sport that the Scots and Welsh are largely oblivious to). And let’s be clear that if Lady Ga-Ga was getting married it would be just as newsworthy for this is a Hello magazine special and no more. 

  3. patrickhadfield says:

    Funnily enough, I think I’m with you on this. I am not a fan of the monarchy, but I doubt replacing it would achieve much. Chris Dillow said much the same – http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/04/in-praise-of-monarchy.html

    I have one major exception: our lack of constituton. This makes us all subjects, not citizens. And results in government and the judiciary not treating people very well! (See Heather Brookes’ The Silent State.)

  4. Teedjay says:

    Of course you could just retain the institution of the Crown and leave the post of the Monarch unfilled. Having a “head of state” is a ridiculous idea[1].

    Pedantic quibble no. 1:

    “our lack of constituton. ”

    We do have a constitution. It is just not written down in a single document. I take the point that there are a large number of problems with our constitution vis a vis the role of parliament and the relationship between executive and legislature. And thanks for the tip on the “Silent State” – I will add it to my reading list.

    Pedantic quibble no. 2:

    “This makes us all subjects, not citizens”

    1) My passport says otherwise, and 2) I don’t care that much what precise word the state uses to describe me in terms of its relationship with me. What matters is the *nature* of that relationship. FWIW “subject” has a straightforward honesty that “citizen” lacks.

    [1]: That the Monarchy is ridiculous is obvious. But placing so much significance and (in the case of some presidential systems) political power in the hands of any single individual is almost as ridiculous.

  5. LambethLou says:

    One of your best posts.

  6. Pingback: Man walks into a column, no.18: Royalty « arbitrary constant

  7. Pingback: Off with both of their heads! » 21stCenturyFix.org.uk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s